It MUST include the name of the W3C group
that produced the document. The name MUST be
a link to a public page for the group.

It MUST include the name of the W3C
Activity that produced the document. The name MUST be a link to either the Activity home page or
the Activity statement.

It MUST include the name of a mailing list
for comments that is publicly archived.

It MUST begin with the following
boilerplate text:

<p><em> This section describes the status of this
document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede
this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest
revision of this technical report can be found in the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">W3C technical reports index</a>
at http://www.w3.org/TR/.</em></p>

It MUST include at least one customized
paragraph. This section SHOULD include the
title page date of the document. These paragraphs SHOULD explain the publication context, including
rationale and relationships to other work. See examples in the Manual of Style.

If the document is not a Recommendation, the status section MUST set expectations about the stability of the
document. The RECOMMENDED text is:

Publication as a Working Draft [Candidate Recommendation, Proposed
Recommendation, Working Group Note, Proposed Edited Recommendation,
Rescinded Recommendation] does not imply endorsement by the W3C
Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite
this document as other than work in progress.

It MUST include a link to changes since
the previous draft (e.g., a list of changes or a diff document or
both).

It MUST include the following information
regarding patent disclosures:

a link to a public page that lists patent disclosures (details in the Guide), even if
there are no known disclosures at the time of publication.
(Suggestion: adding rel="disclosure" helps the pubrules checker find this link.)
The status section MUST NOT indicate the
number of known disclosures at the time of publication.

a link to a public page with instructions on how to carry out a
disclosure (generally the same page as the list of disclosures). If
the document has been developed under the 5
February 2004 W3C Patent Policy, and if the document is a Working
Draft published before the exclusion deadline, the status section
MUST also link to public instructions
for exclusions (generally near the disclosure instructions).

If the document was developed under the 5
February 2004 W3C Patent Policy, the status section MUST include what the Patent Policy calls a
Disclosure Request. The Disclosure Request MUST conform to the requirements of the W3C
Patent Policy (5 February 2004 version), in particular section
6.3. The RECOMMENDED text is the
last sentence of the first example paragraph below.

Here is a sample paragraph for a document produced under the W3C Patent
Policy:

This document was produced under the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/">5 February
2004 W3C Patent Policy</a>. The Working Group maintains a <a
rel="disclosure" href="....">public
list of patent disclosures</a> relevant to this document; that page
also includes instructions for disclosing [and excluding] a patent. An
individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual
believes contains Essential Claim(s) with respect to this specification
should disclose the information in accordance with <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure">section
6 of the W3C Patent Policy</a>.

Here is a sample paragraph for a document produced under the Current
Patent Practice Note:

This document was produced under the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124">24
January 2002 CPP</a> as amended by the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-pp-transition">W3C Patent Policy
Transition Procedure</a>. The Working Group maintains a <a
rel="disclosure" href="....">public
list of patent disclosures</a> relevant to this document; that page
also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has
actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains
Essential Claim(s) with respect to this specification should disclose the
information in accordance with <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure">section
6 of the W3C Patent Policy</a>.

Per <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion">section
4 of the W3C Patent Policy</a>, Working Group participants have
150 days from the title page date of this document to exclude essential
claims from the W3C RF licensing requirements with respect to this
document series. Exclusions are with respect to the exclusion reference
document, defined by the W3C Patent
Policy to be the latest version of a document in this series that
is published no later than 90 days after the title page date of this
document.

1.3.2 Last Call Working Drafts

These requirements apply to the status section of all Last Call
Working Drafts.

These requirements apply to the status section of all Proposed
Recommendations and Proposed Edited Recommendations.

It MUST include the end date of the review
period.

It MUST include or link to the list of
changes that may affect conformance.

It MUST include a link to an
interoperability or implementation report. If a Proposed Edited
Recommendation, the report(s) MAY be
limited in scope to changes since the Recommendation.

These requirements apply to the status section of all Proposed
Recommendations.

If the previous version of this document was not a Candidate
Recommendation, the status section SHOULD
include rationale for the Director's decision to
skip CR (e.g., there was already sufficient implementation
experience).

These requirements apply to the status section of all
Recommendations.

If the Recommendation is more than an editorial revision, it SHOULD include a link to an interoperability or
implementation report.

It MUST indicate its relationship to
previous related Recommendations (e.g., an indication that a
Recommendation supersedes, obsoletes, or subsumes another, or that a
Recommendation is an editorial revision).

These requirements apply to the status section of all Rescinded
Recommendations.

It MUST include or link to rationale for
the decision to rescind the Recommendation.

These requirements apply to the status section of all
Working, Interest, and Coordination Group Notes.

It SHOULD indicate the level of
endorsement within the group for the material, set expectations
that the group has completed work on the topics covered by the
document, and set expectations about the group's commitment to
respond to comments about the document.

If the document was published due to a W3C decision to stop
work on this material, the status section SHOULD include that rationale.

For Team Submissions, it MUST include the
name of a mailing list for comments.

For Member Submissions, it MUST include this
boilerplate text:

By publishing this document, W3C acknowledges that [Submitting Members]
have made a formal submission to W3C for discussion. Publication of
this document by W3C indicates no endorsement of its content by W3C,
nor that W3C has, is, or will be allocating any resources to the issues
addressed by it. This document is not the product of a chartered W3C
group, but is published as potential input to the <a
href="/Consortium/Process">W3C Process</a>. Publication of
acknowledged Member Submissions at the W3C site is one of the benefits
of <a href="/Consortium/Prospectus/Joining">W3C
Membership</a>. Please consult the requirements associated with
Member Submissions of <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-submissions">section
3.3 of the W3C Patent Policy</a>. Please consult the complete
<a href="/Submission">list of acknowledged W3C Member
Submissions</a>.

If the document is compound (i.e., if it consists of more than one
file), all the files MUST be under a
directory (whether in /TR/YYYY/ space or
Submission space) named
status-shortname-YYYYMMDD/. The main
page SHOULD be called Overview.html. All
other files MUST be reachable by links from
the document.

The document MUST NOT have any broken
internal links or broken links to other resources at w3.org. The document
SHOULD NOT have any other broken links.

Normative versions of a Recommendation track document MUST be served at the "this version" URI.
Alternatives will be made available through content negotiation.

Authors MAY provide non-normative
alternatives (available at other URIs). See section 1.5
below for more information about links to these alternatives from the
head of the document.

Note: Serving two formats at the "this version" URI is an
assertion by W3C that the documents are equivalent for the purposes of
conveying the requirements of the document. In practice, the Comm Team will
not read each alternative to verify that this is the case. If the
Communications Team learns of substantive discrepancies between normative
alternatives, the W3C Head of Communications may request that the author no
longer serve the alternative as normative.

For reasons of backwards compatibility, at least one normative version
of a document MUST validate as one of the
following: HTML 2.0, HTML 3.2, HTML 4.x, or XHTML 1.0.

A normative alternative MUST use an
XHTML-based format.

5.1 Style sheet requirements

The document MUST NOT have any style sheet
errors.

Each document MUST include a link to the
style sheet identified below that is appropriate for the document
maturity level. The URI used to identify the style sheet MUST be absolute. Any internal style sheets are
cascaded before this link; i.e., the internal style sheets MUST NOT override the W3C tech report styles.

If a technical report with no changes that affect conformance to
previous Recommendation then there MUST
be a change to the edition number (e.g., "Second Edition") and no
change to the revision number.

If a technical report with changes that affect conformance to
previous Recommendation but no new features, then there MUST be a change to the minor revision number
(e.g., "Version 1.1").

If a technical report with new features from previous
Recommendation then there MUST be a
change to the major revision number (e.g., "Version 2.0").

The document's status and date MUST be in
an h2 element as follows.

<h2>W3C status14 August 2004</h2>

Where the date follows the date syntax and
status is one of: Working Draft, Candidate Recommendation,
Proposed Recommendation, Proposed Edited Recommendation, Recommendation,
Rescinded Recommendation,Working (or Interest or Coordination) Group
Note, Team Submission, or Member Submission

For example:

<h2>W3C Working Draft 3 March 2000</h2>

<h2>W3C Working Group Note 3 March 2000</h2>

If this is a modified Recommendation that was modified in place or is
a new edition, the document MUST include
both the original publication date and the modification date. For example:

<h2>W3C Recommendation 7 April 2004, edited in place 19 August
2004</h2>

Document identifier information MUST be
present in this order for Recommendation track documents:

Member and Team Submissions MUST include a
"this version" link and the base URI MUST be
different than http://www.w3.org/TR/. Member and Team
Submissions SHOULD also include a latest
version link.

The editors'/authors' names MUST be
listed. Affiliations and email addresses are OPTIONAL ; email addresses are NOT RECOMMENDED. If the list of authors is very
long (e.g., the entire Working Group), list the authors in the
acknowledgments section, linked from the head of the document.
Distinguish any contributors from authors in the acknowledgments
section.

If a Recommendation, immediately after the editors/authors' names,
there MUST be a link to an errata document
made with the following markup:

<p>Please refer to the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/..."><strong>errata</strong></a>
for this document, which may include some normative
corrections.</p>

One of the following maturity levels:
Working Draft, including First Public Working Drafts and Last Call
Working Drafts (WD); Candidate Recommendation (CR); Proposed Recommendation
(PR); Recommendation (REC); Proposed Edited Recommendation (PER);
Rescinded Recommendation (RSCND); or Working Group, Interest
Group, or Coordination Group Note (NOTE).

For a Recommendation Track document, this is either the Team Contact
of the group requesting publication, or the document editor. For
Submissions, this is generally one of the Submitters. Consult the W3C Head of Communications if you are
not sure who is the relevant Team contact.

Many of these status section requirements used to appear in the Process
Document. The Advisory Board has recommended that they be included here as a
convenience to editors. These requirements have undergone review by the
Membership as part of reviews of the Process Document.

Per announcement
to the Chairs on 20 Mar 2001, the Comm Team will announce all substantive
changes to this document to W3C Chairs. After any substantive change, editors
will have a 30-day grace period (starting with the announcement of the
change) before the change will be enforced by the Comm Team. During the
30-day period, editors may publish documents that conform to either the old
or new pubrules.

The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and
OPTIONAL are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.